SURESH KUMAR KUNURAMA Vs. T SUSHEELA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant is the revision petitioner and the first respondent is the original landlady and the second respondent was brought on record as second appellant by an order dated 19.10.2000 in IA No.23 8/2000 in RA No.292/96 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad. The first respondent in the present CRP, the original landlady, filed RC No.30/93 on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad on several grounds and the learned Rent Controller, after recording the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and RW1 and also marking Exs.Al to A3 and Exs.Bl to B99 and Exs.Xl to X3, had arrived at a conclusion that the landlady is not entitled to the relief of eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the landlady had preferred RA No.292/96 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad and during the pendency of the appeal, PW4 was brought on record as second appellant, as already stated supra, and the appellate authority had negatived all the grounds confirming the order of the Court of first instance, but, had allowed the appeal on the ground of bona fide personal occupation only. In the appeal, Exs.A4 to A16 were marked and aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority made in R.A.No.292/96 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad, dated 1.3.2001, the tenant had preferred the present revision.

(2.) Sri Vilas V. Ajzulpurkar, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner-tenant, had drawn my attention to paragraph No.7 of RA No.292/96, which is to the following effect: "According to the petitioner, except the suit house, she is not having any other house of her own in Hyderabad City. The one room portion of the suit house under occupation of the petitioner is not sufficient for her personal requirement and occupation and the petitioner and her husband often and regular visits and stay at Hyderabad and the petitioner bona fidely requires the suit premises for her personal occupation and additional accommodation for residential purpose and the respondent is liable to be evicted from the suit premises."

(3.) The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to the fact that the second respondent in the CRP was impleaded as the second appellant on the strength of a gift deed, dated 4.5.1998, executed by the landlady in favour of the second respondent in the CRP. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that the requirement of the donor stands on a different footing from that of the donee and merely because he was examined as PW4, it doesn't improve the case of the landlady in any manner. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that the landlady was not examined at all, but the husband of the landlady was examined as PW1. The learned Counsel also had contended that in the light of the pleading and also in the light of the evidence, which had been let in, the requirement of the landlady no longer subsists and what has to be decided now is that in the light of the subsequent changes, whether the ground of bona fide personal requirement survives or not. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that the appellate authority, in fact, was doubtful whether it was a ground of additional accommodation and in any event, the non-consideration of relative hardship also definitely vitiates the order. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to both the oral and documentary evidence and also had placed reliance on Sheikh Jehangir v. smt. S. Kaushilyabai and others, 1987 Supp. SCC 630, Om Prakash v. Basanthilal, (1999) 9 SCC 618 and Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Shrivastava, AIR 2001 SC 803. The learned Counsel on the aspect of 'change of user' had contended that both the Courts below had recorded the concurrent findings relating to this ground on appreciation of evidence and it does not warrant any interference.